 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
207.69.140.20
In Reply to: RE: This Is England posted by dave c on August 27, 2007 at 21:27:29
you've mentioned Australia?
If that's true, Dave, didn't you leap into the proverbial fire?
I've read some good reviews of this but, living in a small town area, I'll have to wait for Netflix.
Ya got a minute?
How about a small (or, hell, long) list of your favorite British films of the past ten years or so?
I've noticed--- and I'm guilty of it as much as anyone--- that Brit films get short shrift in this forum. I'm going on a Brit-kick as soon as I clear up my Net queue.
Follow Ups:
I moved to OZ about 8 years ago and wouldn't move back even though I do miss certain things about Britain.
Frying pan... fire... well having lived through the Thatcher years I have now survived the Howard epoch and that too will end in a few months.
All things must pass.
All over the world services from education and health to public transport have been rolled back and sold off for the past 30 years.
In my opinion, many of these will never exist again as the cost would now be beyond the reaches of any government not prepared to just take them back so it's all over for the liberal centre-left democracies.
I have had a mix of luck and judgement to make enough money to be able to afford stuff so it doesn't matter so much to me that Australia is going down the same path.
Sad but people often vote for lower taxes.
As for British films, I will have to take a while to think of those but yes, there have been a number.
The Wind That Shakes The Barley immediately stands out.
Mrs. Henderson Presents (although part of that is the scene on the roof looking over the East End which is where my family was during the war).
I'll get back to you...
response.
The things I've noticed that mainly are different between Brits and Americans is a sense of fellowship, "we're all in this together."
I remember feeling that very strongly as I grew up in the American Midwest but it seems to have disappeared somewhere between Reagan and the second Bush regimes.
There also is more of a respect for intellectual puruits among the British which I remember noticing in school as a lad as well as during my recent visit.
There also, of course, if the issue of appearance: England is gorgeous. The lack of billboards on highways, the strict signage rules in towns, the general civic pride evident in the many well-cared for parks, streets, and historic buildings.
Somewhere, my country went off the rails and Bush II shows it hasn't found its way back yet to its old values.
On the other hand, by all accounts, Britain is more of a birth society. You are born into a class, and that is where you will stay. If you are Black, for example, there is not much upward mobility. If you are born poor, that is likely where you will stay. The concept of a Carnegie, for example, would be impossible there. There is no British equivalent of an Obama, or Condoleezza Rice, who parents were sharecroppers in the South, or Gonzalez (without regard to his foibles), whose parents were hispanic immigrants.
How many faces of color are in Parliament? House of Commons? The Prime Minister's cabinet? No country is perfect, but I'll take the U.S.s scientific achievements over any other country. While we have health care issues, I'll take the quality of the U.S. doctor and the facilities over any other country.
about upward mobility in "outside asylum" I'd join in.
You really aren't making your case by pointing to a few high profile Americans, are you?
Some stats: of the 651 members of parliament, there are three Asian, and three black members. Diversity? "Old Britain?"
"about upward mobility in "outside asylum" I'd join in."
Well, your prior post had nothing to do with "films", and probably also belonged in Outside, but since you jumped in, I saw no issue with me doing the same.
"You're thinking of old Britain"
No. England still has a Queen, and someday a King. They earn those titles, and riches that come with the title, simply by being born, having done nothing to earn the riches. Now, the U.S. has its share of trust fund children, but the difference is there it is, to a great extent, a state subsidized institution, whereas here, it is not.
"You really aren't making your case by pointing to a few high profile Americans, are you?"
There are many more. Those are the ones that came to me quickly. The point stands, though, how many people of color are given the reigns to lead the English government? How many of those people leading the English government have been culled from the lower classes? Could some like Rice, the daughter of sharecroppers from the South, raise to the pinnacle of the English Government. They have had several hundred years of a head start, and I doubt you can find someone in English history akin to Rice. Or Colin Powell. Or Gonzalez. No doubt you can go back to prior administrations, or a variety of state governments.
Dave appears to agree that England is still a country preoccupied with class. I suspect that if the Senate, House, and Governor's mansions in the U.S. were all lilly white protestants, you would be blasting the U.S. England, though, gets a pass.
Monarchy does not actually necessitate an inherited title.
Systems that elect parliaments to rule are closer to democracy than presidential ones, in my opinion.
THe black population of Britain has only really been statistically significant for 50 years.
I haven't lived there for 8 years so I can't comment on the number of black representatives in local government.
"THe black population of Britain has only really been statistically significant for 50 years."
Let's not forget that until the mid 60's, a scant forty years ago, black people's right to vote was somewhat limited in the South. It was not that long ago racial murders were taking place.
"But the USA elects a king every 4 years"
Elect is the operative word here.
"Systems that elect parliaments to rule are closer to democracy than presidential ones, in my opinion."
With the major distinction being that the Prime Minister is not elected by the people, but rather by the representatives the people elect. Sort of like Congress electing the President.
"Monarchy does not actually necessitate an inherited title."
I am not sure what you mean here.
I was trying/hoping to say that monarchy merely means rule by one and that it is not necessary for that to be a hereditary title.
In Britain, for example, it is not as important who is prime minister as it is important in the USA who is president.
The power is not as concentrated. The party rules to a much greater extent.
For this reason, it has not been that rare for ruling parties to change leader during a parliament, eg when the Conservative Party dismissed Thatcher.
it doesn't and that's a common logical fallacy.
The Queen proves nothing. Neither do Rice or, for that matter, Clarence Thomas: they didn't have slaves or sharecroppers in England, now did they, a generation ago?
You'd also do well to consider how much diversity exists in England: it's still a very white country with nowhere near the people of color we have.
There are stats which SHOW the ability of the poor to elevate themselves across different cultures and countries: these are sociological studies using accepted research methodology.
The cabinet of Britain, btw, is known as the Scottish Mafia. Now THAT'S diversity!
"There are stats which SHOW the ability of the poor to elevate themselves across different cultures and countries: these are sociological studies using accepted research methodology."
Then perhaps you can provide them to support your argument. Or are you akin to a King, in which your "opinion" is deemed to be fact.
If it is a cliche that everything in America is about race, it is certainly true that everything in Britain is about class.
But don't confuse class with money.
There are plenty of black people doing very well in Britain.
There are plenty of poor people with no idea of how to get out of a hole.
"There are plenty of poor people with no idea of how to get out of a hole."
There are poor people everywhere who have no idea of how to get out of a whole. The difference is that in the U.S., if you are poor, there is a very real avenue to rise. Britain?
"There are plenty of black people doing very well in Britain."
Black people who began their lives in poverty? I was also referring to elected officials. I wonder how many black people, or people of color, have led Britain's military? Or diplomacy? Or been considered for Prime Minister? I suspect that this dovetails back into your point about class versus money - they may have money, but they do not come from the right class, and therefore the upper classes in Britain are predominantly while, protestant.
bleep
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
